is 2gb of ram is just as good as 4gb.

computerramusa@cooltoad.com wrote:
> is 2gb of ram is just as good as 4gb.

Depends on what you're going to use the computer for. If you enlightened
us as to how you plan to use the computer, we can give you a more
informed answer.

Alias

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 1303 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> vista is bad for ya wrote:
>>
>> vista uses extra ram as a cache keeping programs that it uses
>> frequently in that cache for the next time you run it..
>>
>> therefore the more ram you have the better
>>
>> that said, for computer for everyday use will see a small increase in
>> performance but for a computer doing graphics you absolutely need more
>> ram than 2 gb...
>>
>> vista is a very fat and boated OS... and it depends on much ram to get
>> its fat arse moving...
>>
>> for the vista loving trolls who deny this, please let them remove the
>> extra ram they have and let them use only 512 mb ram
>>
>> XP would runs "ok" with 512mb meaning that you can use it for some
>> tasks, but vista strains under its own weight.
>
>
> XP barely crawls with 512 MB of RAM if the all the 'Windows updates'
> are installed.

Geez - that is sure depressing! I've seen Linux installs that breeze
along quite handily with 256mb.

ray wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 1303 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
>> vista is bad for ya wrote:
>>> vista uses extra ram as a cache keeping programs that it uses
>>> frequently in that cache for the next time you run it..
>>>
>>> therefore the more ram you have the better
>>>
>>> that said, for computer for everyday use will see a small increase in
>>> performance but for a computer doing graphics you absolutely need more
>>> ram than 2 gb...
>>>
>>> vista is a very fat and boated OS... and it depends on much ram to get
>>> its fat arse moving...
>>>
>>> for the vista loving trolls who deny this, please let them remove the
>>> extra ram they have and let them use only 512 mb ram
>>>
>>> XP would runs "ok" with 512mb meaning that you can use it for some
>>> tasks, but vista strains under its own weight.
>>
>> XP barely crawls with 512 MB of RAM if the all the 'Windows updates'
>> are installed.
>
> Geez - that is sure depressing! I've seen Linux installs that breeze
> along quite handily with 256mb.

XP works fine with 512 MB of RAM if it's RAM that's better than pc-100
or 133.

Alias

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 1949 +0100, Alias wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 1303 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>>> vista is bad for ya wrote:
>>>> vista uses extra ram as a cache keeping programs that it uses
>>>> frequently in that cache for the next time you run it..
>>>>
>>>> therefore the more ram you have the better
>>>>
>>>> that said, for computer for everyday use will see a small increase in
>>>> performance but for a computer doing graphics you absolutely need more
>>>> ram than 2 gb...
>>>>
>>>> vista is a very fat and boated OS... and it depends on much ram to get
>>>> its fat arse moving...
>>>>
>>>> for the vista loving trolls who deny this, please let them remove the
>>>> extra ram they have and let them use only 512 mb ram
>>>>
>>>> XP would runs "ok" with 512mb meaning that you can use it for some
>>>> tasks, but vista strains under its own weight.
>>>
>>> XP barely crawls with 512 MB of RAM if the all the 'Windows updates'
>>> are installed.
>>
>> Geez - that is sure depressing! I've seen Linux installs that breeze
>> along quite handily with 256mb.
>
> XP works fine with 512 MB of RAM if it's RAM that's better than pc-100
> or 133.
>
> Alias

You cannot really say that. IT depends on what applications you want to
run and how many you want open at any one time. Besides we all know that
Windows is a very inefficient OS and does a poor job of multitasking
applications.

On Dec 27, 11:28*am, inva...@example.com wrote:
> vista is bad for ya wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Posting at the top because that's where the cursor
> happened to be is like shitting in your pants because
> that's where your asshole happened to be.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAA!

Do you mind if I quote you?


Mark L. Fergerson

<invalid@example.com> wrote in message
news:5tydnUZW9sZOHMvURVn_vwA@giganews.com...
>
>
> vista is bad for ya wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Posting at the top because that's where the cursor
> happened to be is like shitting in your pants because
> that's where your asshole happened to be.


Actually the way I heard it was that giving enough of a shit about top or
bottom posting to try to berate people over it means your xxx-hole happens
to be on your head.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 1439 -0500, Happy Trails wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:04:52 -0800 (PST), computerramusa@cooltoad.com
> wrote:
>
>>is 2gb of ram is just as good as 4gb.
>
>
> No, 4gb of ram is twice as good as 2gb.

Not really true. If your system is using 1GB then how is 4GB twice as
good as 2GB and if you are doing database (IO Bound) memory does not do as
much as if you are number crunching.

On Dec 27, 8:04*am, computerram...@cooltoad.com wrote:
> is 2gb of ram is just as good as 4gb.

In some cases 2gb is better. Setting aside half the address space for
memory mapped I/O can make for a better system. If you put 2bg on a
24MHz version of the 8051, and make it address 2gb of external RAM is
will out perform a 4gb, 4GHz quad core machine with graphics
accelerator running Vista. Part of the problem is that Vista uses the
bogosort routine to sort the PIDs to find the next task to give a time
slice to but the 8051 just uses the JMP @A+DPTR

If you are doing graphics on your PC, you should stop right now. PCs
are for doing spreadsheets.

On Dec 27, 12:42*pm, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 1303 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> > vista is bad for ya wrote:
>
> >> vista uses extra ram as a cache keeping programs that it uses
> >> frequently in that cache for the next time you run it..
>
> >> therefore the more ram you have the better
>
> >> that said, for computer for everyday use will see a small increase in
> >> performance but for a computer doing graphics you absolutely need more
> >> ram than 2 gb...
>
> >> vista is a very fat and boated OS... and it depends on much ram to get
> >> its fat arse moving...
>
> >> for the vista loving trolls who deny this, please let them remove the
> >> extra ram they have and let them use only 512 mb ram
>
> >> XP would runs "ok" with 512mb meaning that you can use it for some
> >> tasks, but vista strains under its own weight.
>
> > * *XP barely crawls with 512 MB of RAM if the all the 'Windows updates'
> > are installed.
>
> Geez - that is sure depressing! I've seen Linux installs that breeze
> along quite handily with 256mb.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And I remember mainframe computers that were considered huge because
they had 2 gb of mass storage. Times have changed and now it takes 2
gb just to start the damn thing.